North Korea threatens to cancel Trump summit if the US insists it gives up its nuclear weapons

#1
North Korea has said it may pull out of a summit with US President Donald Trump if the US insists it gives up its nuclear weapons.
The highly anticipated meeting between Mr Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un is due to take place on 12 June.
But in an angry statement, North Korea's vice-foreign minister accused the US of making reckless statements and of harbouring sinister intentions.
He pointed the finger squarely at US National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"We do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him," Kim Kye-gwan said.
The groundbreaking agreement for Mr Kim and Mr Trump to meet came about as North Korea said it was committed to denuclearising the Korean peninsula.
Exactly what that would entail has remained unclear, but North Korea has invited foreign media to witness the dismantling of its main nuclear test site later this month.
Mr Bolton recently said North Korea could follow a "Libya model" of verifiable denuclearisation, but Pyongyang rejects comparisons to Libya, saying it is a nuclear-armed state, while Libya was only in the early stages of weapons development when it reached a deal with the UK and US in 2003.
The BBC's Laura Bicker in Seoul says North Korea - which had long said its nuclear arsenal is essential for its survival as a state - is now making its demands clear.

What does North Korea's statement say?
Mr Kim's statement, carried by state media, said that if the US "corners us and unilaterally demands we give up nuclear weapons we will no longer have an interest in talks" and "will have to reconsider" attending the 12 June summit in Singapore.
He said North Korea did have "high hopes" but that it was "very unfortunate that the US is provoking us ahead of the summit by spitting out ludicrous statements".
Kim Kye-gwan is known to be highly respected in the North Korean leadership and has taken part in negotiations with the US before. There is very little chance his comments were not personally endorsed by Kim Jong-un.
Hours before the announcement, in a sign of growing problems, North Korea had also pulled out of a meeting scheduled with South Korea on Wednesday.because of anger over the start of US-South Korea joint military drills.
North Korea had earlier said it would allow them to go ahead, but then called them "a provocative military ruckus" which was undermining its diplomatic efforts.
The sudden change in tone from Pyongyang is said to have taken US officials by surprise. Analysts said North Korea could be trying to strengthen its hand before talks.

Why the personal attack on John Bolton?
The hawkish conservative is a firm defender of US power and a confrontational advocate for wielding that strength abroad. He has previously said it would be "perfectly legitimate" to carry out a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
In media interviews over the weekend, he said North Korea could follow a Libyan model of nuclear disarmament - Libya gave up its weapons' programmes in the early 2000s and only then secured economic aid and normalised relations with the US.
However during the 2011 uprising against Colonel Gaddafi's regime, Western powers intervened in Libya, and Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces.
North Korea has in the past suggested that Libya may have escaped Western military intervention had it kept its nuclear weapons programme.

BBC

I'm shocked someone dared mentioning Libya in this context.
Meanwhile Trump's "Peace Nobel Price" for NK denuclearization could wait a bit.
 
Last edited:
#6
North Korea is a completely different type of dictatorship than Gaddafi's Libya was, but there is something to be said for the US trackrecord of denuclearizing countries then regime-changing them, often for the worse. Hell, Trump wants to do the same to Iran.

I can see why they could be legitimately afraid, but I don't think this is legitimate.
 
#12
Hmm, sorry im from Scotland in the UK. I mean, how many soldiers does it take to kill kim jongdongalong?

When I meant 'we' I mean ... err, US government-people.... the guys basically the worlds worst dictator. I just figure it can't be hard to fly in about 100 drones all attached with a kim-jong-dong seeking-missile. He's not exactly hiding like Bin Laden or whoever, but the guy needs to be put down. Idk man, evidently im not super loquacious or smart but ...
 
Last edited:
#14
So they already released all American prisoners and now they are threatening to cancel the "deal"? Why give away your leverage in the first place then? Doesn't make much sense. Just sounds like posturing to me.
I do think it is posturing, but it would be beneficial for the US to cancel any military exercises and even apologize.

This whole affair has been the closest to peace the Koreas have been in decades, so the US should work with them a little. The US needs to get out of there as soon as they reach an agreement and let China hold NK in check.
 
#15
Hmm, sorry im from Scotland in the UK. I mean, how many soldiers does it take to kill kim jongdongalong?

When I meant 'we' I mean ... err, US government-people.... the guys basically the worlds worst dictator. I just figure it can't be hard to fly in about 100 drones all attached with a kim-jong-dong seeking-missile. He's not exactly hiding like Bin Laden or whoever, but the guy needs to be put down. Idk man, evidently im not super loquacious or smart but ...
Attacking NK would require a draft because I don't believe China is going to sit there while we do so. I highly doubt we will do that. At most, a bombing campaign. I say this as a person that wants us to topple NK.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
#16
And did we really do those solider training test with South Korea? Because if so......
Yeah, it was a really dumb for us to do that. Like really, really dumb.
Hours before the announcement, in a sign of growing problems, North Korea had also pulled out of a meeting scheduled with South Korea on Wednesday.because of anger over the start of US-South Korea joint military drills.
North Korea had earlier said it would allow them to go ahead, but then called them "a provocative military ruckus" which was undermining its diplomatic efforts.
NK agreed that the drills could go forward. The US didn't stipulate afaik that they couldn't have drills either in the meantime. It's not our fault that they appear to be sending mixed signals.


I do think it is posturing, but it would be beneficial for the US to cancel any military exercises and even apologize.

This whole affair has been the closest to peace the Koreas have been in decades, so the US should work with them a little. The US needs to get out of there as soon as they reach an agreement and let China hold NK in check.
Why would the US need to apologize?
 
#19
Key word is unilateral. Our people screwed up and compared the possible course to Libya. KJU is now testing waters and opening angle for regime protection provisions, possibly secured by China. Not giving up hope yet, but not the best news by any stretch.
 
#20
Key word is unilateral. Our people screwed up and compared the possible course to Libya. KJU is now testing waters and opening angle for regime protection provisions, possibly secured by China. Not giving up hope yet, but not the best news by any stretch.
Honestly, I am open to allowing the regime to persist for a while longer, with negotiated changes to bring more openness. As we have seen with China and other countries, mere exposure to the ideas of the west promotes a freer population on its own.

None of the dramatic regime-topples the US has attempted or brought about have turned out well. Granted, NK does not have militant groups waiting in the wings to take control like Iraq and Libya did (the latter of which now has a literal cannibal problem thanks to the US "saving" them from Gaddafi) and like Syria does, but who knows what could happen. The country is so silent that, for all we know, there could be some crazy cult in the oppressed population that would take over and do worse things than the Kims.
 
#21
Honestly, I am open to allowing the regime to persist for a while longer, with negotiated changes to bring more openness. As we have seen with China and other countries, mere exposure to the ideas of the west promotes a freer population on its own.

None of the dramatic regime-topples the US has attempted or brought about have turned out well. Granted, NK does not have militant groups waiting in the wings to take control like Iraq and Libya did (the latter of which now has a literal cannibal problem thanks to the US "saving" them from Gaddafi) and like Syria does, but who knows what could happen. The country is so silent that, for all we know, there could be some crazy cult in the oppressed population that would take over and do worse things than the Kims.
If they get rid of the nukes, I don't care if they continue their regime in perpetuity. If they start dropping chemical bombs my thoughts may change, but if their only future sins are internal, I prefer we keep our men and women (and those of our allies) out of it. The human toll is too much, and as someone who strays in the center, I'd like to reduce our international police spending to refocus the money on domestic needs.
 
#22
Honestly, I am open to allowing the regime to persist for a while longer, with negotiated changes to bring more openness. As we have seen with China and other countries, mere exposure to the ideas of the west promotes a freer population on its own.

None of the dramatic regime-topples the US has attempted or brought about have turned out well. Granted, NK does not have militant groups waiting in the wings to take control like Iraq and Libya did (the latter of which now has a literal cannibal problem thanks to the US "saving" them from Gaddafi) and like Syria does, but who knows what could happen. The country is so silent that, for all we know, there could be some crazy cult in the oppressed population that would take over and do worse things than the Kims.
The sad part is we DID save them from Gaddafi. Then something bad came in his absence. We can't control the world. It's why being the world police and acting like our President is the "Leader of the free world" is so dumb.
 
#24
So they already released all American prisoners and now they are threatening to cancel the "deal"? Why give away your leverage in the first place then? Doesn't make much sense. Just sounds like posturing to me.
At the end of the day, it's up to Kim how much risk he's willing to deal with. Does he want to expose himself like Gaddafi or risk getting himself and millions of others killed by proceeding with the country's nuclear ambitions? It's a tough choice for sure.
 
#25
So they already released all American prisoners and now they are threatening to cancel the "deal"? Why give away your leverage in the first place then? Doesn't make much sense. Just sounds like posturing to me.
I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread (and was mocked)...NK will never give up their nukes. They are being treated as an equal for the first time on the international stage and ONLY because of what they managed to achieve. NK is looking to secure their future and they have a great shot of getting lots of concessions from our illustrious leader desperate for a "win".

On a side note, it must be surreal watching NK get a one-on-one meeting with the President while you are being treated like a pariah in Iran. How long before they and others decide that there isn't a point in negotiating with the US when you are only treated as an equal if you can fire a nuke?
 
#26
I'll reiterate what I said in the other thread (and was mocked)...NK will never give up their nukes. They are being treated as an equal for the first time on the international stage and ONLY because of what they managed to achieve. NK is looking to secure their future and they have a great shot of getting lots of concessions from our illustrious leader desperate for a "win".

On a side note, it must be surreal watching NK get a one-on-one meeting with the President while you are being treated like a pariah in Iran. How long before they and others decide that there isn't a point in negotiating with the US when you are only treated as an equal if you can fire a nuke?
That's what we fear. Reneging on the Iran deal showed that we are inconsistent and unstable. Dude wen't back on such high level diplomacy, it's not a good look.